1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B delivers a building listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. Defendant C shall list attached hereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association that obtained approval to establish a housing redevelopment project on May 29, 2012 to implement a housing redevelopment project with respect to the area of 185,269.3 square meters in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

B. The Plaintiff received authorization to implement the project on June 2, 2015 from the Ansan market, and obtained the authorization to implement the project on April 22, 2016, and was publicly notified on the same date as the authorization to implement the project.

C. The Defendants are the owners of each building indicated in the separate sheet located in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant building”), who have not filed an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out. D.

On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 147,500,000 for Defendant B’s compensation on July 19, 2017, and KRW 161,90,000 for Defendant C’s compensation on July 25, 2017, and KRW 20,100 for Defendant D’s compensation, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 27, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When the authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly notified pursuant to Article 49(3) of the Urban Improvement Act, the use and profit-making of the right holder, such as the owner, superficies, persons having a right to lease on the previous land or buildings, and the lessee, etc., shall be suspended pursuant to Article 49(6) of the same Act, and the project implementer shall be able to use and profit from the former land or buildings (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53

According to the above facts, the defendants, the owner of the real estate in the rearrangement zone of this case, are suspended from the right to use and benefit from the building of this case, and the plaintiff, the implementer of the rearrangement project of this case, acquired the right to use and benefit from the building of this case. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.